While it was not a surprise that Justice Kagan had opted not to take part in the order, that was nevertheless a significant development. It raised the prospect that, when the constitutional challenge reached the Supreme Court, the Justices might split 4-4 on it; that is always a risk when only eight Justices are taking part and the issue is a deeply controversial one. Should the Ninth Circuit Court upheld [sic] the policy, that result would simply be affirmed; without an opinion, if the Justices were actually to divide 4-4 in reaction to it....

If it should turn out that Congress does not repeal the policy, despite the requests by President Obama and some of the Pentagon’s top civilian and uniformed officers, the constitutional challenge in the Log Cabin Republicans’ case would be the only potential way to end the policy, at least for several more years.

the Supreme Court rules correctly when it cites an actual Constitutional law, not the preamble and it's beautiful but unenumerated language.

I may have the right to happiness, bu the Supreme Court doesn't rule that I am owed a plane ticket to Italy for free from the government.

Many may want same sex marriage , but until such a time as it is codified in the Constitution - an amendment - or voted on by the people in their states - tough shit and yes, and the effort and desire to find a result by any other path is unAmerican.

We don't have slavery today because we have a 13th Amendment. Which was VOTED on.

We have problems - people killed - with the unvoted on abortion Court decision in this country for 37 years. Why - because it was not voted on.

And you think a Court imposing same sex marriage on the people of this nation will go any easier?

------------------------

palladian,generally there is no other commenter in the blogosphere I have ever respected more.But when your emotion cause you to call my family members who serve in United State Marines, Navy and Army protecting your "life, liberty, and happiness" and rights "pussies" . . .

If a service member's "readiness" is effected by knowing a gay person is serving in the same military, well he ain't much of a soldier to begin with. I would rather have a soldier not effected by that serving. Seems pretty insecure to me.

Jason (the commenter) said...Chase: Recently I heard the phrase "Why should someone be allowed to vote on my civil rights?"

Because that's how it works.

Except freedom of speech is already enshrined in the Bill of Rights. And DADT is a freedom of speech issue=====================That's inane. The military is a different organization than civilians think. Corporations can restrict your "free speech" while you are engaging in work, the military can do it 24/7 because you are considered "theirs" till the day you get out. Some civilian organizations have rules for certain employees that go past a 9 to 5 limit - they are in terms of employment. A pro baseball player can be cut if he discredits the game away from the field, gambles on it, gets caught with a 15 year old groupie...etc.

So you can't run around in the military screaming "I hate niggers, I hate white people" even off-duty as a serviceman.Similarly, you can't prance around saying "I'm gay, I'm gay! I'm a queer little daffodil!"

The government already proved that DADT hurts military readiness, that's how they lost this case in the first place!

===================The government has not done that. You are spouting shit. The heads of the service branches say - " not yet - bringing gays in would hurt our readiness and good order and discipline".

All you have is government saying, "yes, hypothetically, not recruiting gays, handicapped people, sex offenders, felons, the really stupid" - does lower the numbers in the recruitment pool available.It might have an impact if most pilot candidates were sex offenders, low-IQ people could be great Army mess cooks with training, and the military is unable to find Arab linguists outside the ones that were gay and were found out because they were trolling for boys at two Arizona high schools and an big arcade area.

Arab linguists outside the ones that were gay and were found out because they were trolling for boys at two Arizona high schools and an big arcade area.

Do you have a citation for that ?

"Seven of the soldiers were discharged after telling superiors they are gay, and the two others got in trouble when they were caught together after curfew, said Steve Ralls, spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group that defends homosexuals in the military."

I bet our best soldiers prepare and perform not dependent on whether the person next to them might be gay or not.

That's a truism - somewhat true and yet somewhat not true.

The Military - our "best soldiers" - train under best practices, best efficiencies. Nothing that gets in the way during training is allowed - either it doesn't exist in the training or it is subsumed into as tight a role as possible. Although converging men and women together in the training would heighten efficiency and make "equal rights" sense, men and women do not sleep together and do not shower together in the military. And there are good reasons - readiness reasons for that.

The issue should be argued with as much deference to the military chiefs as possible and is reasonable.

I would give the military a year and let them work it out. Goldwater had it right when he said all that matters if they shoot straight.

It is really not that big a deal. Most gays who want to serve want to serve. A few showboaters might join to stir the pot, but the military can basically tell you how to wipe your ass with its regulations. I think they can deal with that.

Recently I heard the phrase "Why should someone be allowed to vote on my civil rights?"

Because that's how it works.

That doesn't ring true to me because it negates the idea of "Natural Rights" which I see as foundational to our Republic. It also dismisses the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Randy Barnett explains the 9th so very well, imo:

Rights are unenumerable because rights define a private domain within which persons have a right to do as they wish, provided their conduct does not encroach upon the rightful domains of others. As long as their actions remain within this rightful domain, other persons— including the government—should not interfere. Because people have a right to do whatever they please within the boundaries defined by natural rights, this means that the rights retained by the people are limited only by their imagination and could never be completely specified or enumerated. In sum, as Madison stated, "the pre-existent rights of nature" are "essential to secure the liberty of the people."22 And because liberty is open-ended, so are our rights. - Randy Barnett

But it seems to me that the small nature (I have no way of knowing whether this is so, I'M JUST SPECULATING) of the minority necessitates a conscious effort by the people via the vote in order to see to it that their rights are protected.

Via a majority vote we would send a clear message that sexual orientation should not deprive homosexuals from serving the country.. in some capacity.

A 5 to 4 its like Florida 2000 all over again.. people stoped counting when Kerry announced.. the deep wounds it created hindered Bush all the way into his second term.

Constitutional amendments are nice but you know waht the feminist mafia did to those dont you?

Constitutional amendments are required reading for the Supremes and they dont even read them.

Are you out there?M.O.D. are you out there?I can't see your faceBut you left a trace on a data back-roadThat I almost erasedNot even God takes this long to get backSo get back'Cause I hit a fork in the roadI lost my way homeI'm cut off from out main lineLike a disconnected modem

HelloTap in the codeI'll reach you belowNo one should brave the underworld aloneHello, hello, helloHow do I reach you?

Word has it on the wireThat you don't who you areWell if you could jack into my brainYou'd know exactly what you mean hereMothers are trails on stars in the nightFathers are black holes that suck up the lightThat's the memory I filed on the fringeAlong with the memory of the pain you lived inHello

I don't have the passwordBut the path is chainlinkedSo if you've got the timeSet up the tone to syncTap in the codeI'll reach you below

I love you Penny but you loose me when you write as though you were not.. i dont want to use the word proud because its kind of overused sometimes.. nut you write sometimes as though we are less that good for the world.

The reason why I'm castigating you is because you are not the only one.. and I feel that all those negative voices has a cumulative effect.. the effect of making us a lesser and lesser force for good.

The military needs to be very selective on who they should allow to serve. These decisions are best made by people in the service and in command leadership roles. Everybody else needs to shut the fuck up.

AllenS, Army paratrooper 1966-68. Combat veteran with 2 purple hearts. My first Purple Heart put me in the hospital longer than Fuck Face Kerry served overseas. Then I returned to my unit, and earned another Purple Heart.

Having served in combat, I can say this with some authority and knowledge. You do not want the person next to you in combat that has a limp wrist, in a wheelchair, with one leg, bad eyesight, bad hearing, no trigger finger and I could go on, but you should get the picture. I've met very few homos, but I can say this, all have been effeminate. That is a characteristic that you do not want in the military.

Jason (the commenter) said... Abraham Lincoln was all for segregation.

Abe Lincoln -- Speech at Columbus Ohio, September 16, 1859--

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forbid their ever living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the ***** is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence,--the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with judge Douglas, he is not my equal in many respects, --certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowments. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal, and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.

Although converging men and women together in the training would heighten efficiency and make "equal rights" sense, men and women do not sleep together and do not shower together in the military. And there are good reasons - readiness reasons for that.

This.

When you mix women into a male combat unit, the males stop responding to each other like a pack of wolves and instead start competing against each other for the women's affection.

To say nothing about the PFC who thinks his SGT is putting him back out on patrol so he can get in with his girlfriend.

It has nothing to do with a gay's ability to serve. It has to do with basic human nature - mixing genders changes the way the group interacts. From a Victor Unit perspective, it means your brothers stop trusting your leadership and start second-guessing your motives.